Brickipedia talk:Blocking policy
Blocking periods * Do these blocking periods appear to be a little light to anyone else? I may have become a little heavy-handed I guess, but say for instance there are no admins online for whatever reason, and a vandal comes along and replaces page content with explicit/bad language on 50 articles. Then, the best we can do is give them a warning? I just don't see how that's really an appropriate punishment, especially when multiple pages have to be reverted, and our reputation possibly goes down when new users see pages like this all over the place. Let's face it- people who put in explicit language on wikis know what they're doing and I don't see why we should be accommodating for actions like this and giving them a friendly warning or blocks when they can just come back tomorrow and do the same thing. I'm not saying a blocking policy is a bad thing or anything, I just find some things to be a little lenient, but that's just my opinion :) 23:21, January 10, 2010 (UTC) :Nighthawk Leader does have a point. If a vandel did replace importain content with bad language, we should give more than a warning. It is not an approprite punishment just to give a warning to a vandel who would do something like above. 23:36, Janurary 10, 2010 (UTC) ::You are right, if the edit is clearly bad faith it should be an instablock. Ajraddatz Talk 00:55, January 11, 2010 (UTC) :::I find the concerns like Nighthawk. Though maybe that is because I feel it is easier to decide case by case, eg. One bit of spamming compared to 20 pages of spamming. also block times do seem lenient in some cases, but then i usually block depending on how long seems right at the time, but i worry that if its too short, they and others will feel like they have got away with it, and even if they get heavier blocks afterwards, it will still allow ips or users to maybe go "Well, for a bit of fun and only for a day block, i'll do it" Kingcjc 17:42, January 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well, then we get to have some fun blocking them :). The point is that these users or IPs might come back and edit productively, so why take the chance of blocking them for so long that they don't feel it is worth their time coming back? Also, please link to here in the summary when blocking users. Ajraddatz Talk 19:24, January 16, 2010 (UTC) :Just to say, you can have a gander at MLNWiki's policy if you want. --Kjhf 14:12, February 14, 2010 (UTC) Unwanted content * On Forum:Codes on Brickipedia, we've been discussing what to do with B.I.O. codes, and the outcome was to not allow them on here. Samdo raised the point on what we should do with users who continually add the codes to the wiki, and suggested putting something in about this here. So, for anyone who violates things on Brickipedia:Theme-specific Policies (a page I just made which lists outcomes of the three theme-specific policies we've voted on in the past), I suggest we give the offending user a friendly warning (maybe not even a warning, just give a link to the page where it says its against policy to add such content), then if they continue either a sterner warning or a block, then block on from there. Opinions? 23:39, February 6, 2010 (UTC) :I agree. (By the way, it's not only the B.I.O. codes, its all of such codes) 14:33, February 10, 2010 (UTC) Uploading inappropriate images Hi, Don't You Think you Should give only one Warning for Uploading inappropriate images? That Seems like a big crime to me..........[[User:Crt2|'crt2 ']][[User Talk:Crt2|'I Have Returned! ']] 01:49, February 19, 2010 (UTC) * I think it might depend on what you would classify as inappropriate. It could mean just unrelated material (eg pictures of say a tree which has no relevance to the wiki), or explicit material. If it was explicit, I would recommend an immediate block though. 03:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::I really don't understand you people and insta-blocks (just add water!). Everyone has a bit of good in them, and giving them at least one chance is always beneficial. Ajraddatz Talk 03:30, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :I still think its best to do case by case. If its just random pictures of stuff, then its different to if its from their favourite adult movie Kingcjc 12:25, February 19, 2010 (UTC) My Notice I just came over to this wiki from the LEGO Universe Wiki three days ago, and I've found that this wiki is EXTREMELY different. I didn't expect it to be this way, but it is, and I'm still getting used to it. After the first two days, I'd already received three or four complaints on my talk page about my edits. All were about mistakes concerning my un-familiarity with the system, yet I received a level two warning notice. So, I've got a few questions: 1) Have I kind of missed the mark for the wiki, and all of my edits been useless? 2) Do I seem like some kind of spamming newbie? 3) Have my edits been worthwhile enough for me to stay on the wiki? Thank you. :) Oh, and I wanna thank Nighthawk leader for being so nice to me in spite of my stupid mistakes. :You are completely right - we do a lot of biting the newcomers, which is something which should really be fixed. People should especially not be using the warning templates on any user's pages (save vandals, of course). 17:20, March 28, 2011 (UTC) :Also, you are a great user, and definitely an asset to this wiki :) 17:22, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Thank you, that was a really nice thing to say; I needed to hear that. =) I'm glad I can help this wiki. Let me know if there's anything you need me to do or help out with, please just let me know! Re: Guidelines On an aside, I believe its not really good having set guidelines because they are never used and also each case is different and I could of sworn I typed this before somewhere... -- stercus accidit -- cjc 08:16, May 29, 2011 (UTC) * I completely agree and remember typing something like that too somewhere. 09:32, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ** To be completely honest, I usually block asap before they can do anymore damage. I don't really use these guidelines, doubt anyone else does. Then again, I haven't blocked someone in a little while.. - 12:18, May 29, 2011 (UTC)